Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Himachal Pradesh High Court
Land Recognized As Undemarcated Protected Forest Land, No Permission To Use It For Non-Forest Purpose: Himachal Pradesh High Court Dismisses Challenge Against Eviction Order
|The Himachal Pradesh High Court was considering a petition filed against the eviction order passed by the Collector Forest against the accused/violators who broke the forest land.
While dismissing a petition challenging an eviction order in a case relating to unauthorized occupation of forest land, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has observed that land with Deodar, Kail & Popular trees standing on it, recognized as undemarcated protected forest land owned by the State, is a forest land. There is no permission on record for the use of this forest land for non-forest purposes.
The High Court was considering a petition filed against the eviction order passed by the Collector Forest against the accused/violators who broke the forest land, with a direction to the Forest Department to take over possession of the encroached forest land.
The Single Bench of Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua said, “Petitioners were not necessary parties to the lis before the Collector Forest. They have no locus standi for assailing the order passed by Collector Forest. Mere user of encroachment over the encroached/broken forest land would not make a person necessary party in the eviction proceedings filed by owner of the land against the culprits.”
"Land with Deodar, Kail & Popular trees standing on it recognized as undemarcated protected forest land owned by the State is forest land. There is no permission on record for use of this forest land for non-forest purpose. Merely asserting their need to use the encroachment – the road over the forest land is not sufficient in law to allow the petitioners continued use of forest land contrary to law and the dictum of Hon’ble Apex Court", it added.
Senior Advocate Sunil Mohan Goel represented the Petitioners, while Advocate General Anup Rattan represented the Respondents.
Factual Background
In proceedings initiated under the Himachal Pradesh Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1971, the Collector, Forest Division Kullu had concluded that the concerned Block Development Officer, Naggar and Pradhan, Gram Panchayat Nasogi, were in unauthorised occupation of forest land. An FIR was registered against Ravi and Vikram Singh both sons of Nihal Chand under Sections 447 of the Indian Penal Code and 32 & 33 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. Ravi sold some parcels of land owned by him to the first and the second petitioners under a sale deed. A complaint was lodged by the intervener alleging construction of a road over forest land for the benefit of the commercial private property of the petitioners.
The Collector held that the respondents – concerned Block Development Officer and Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, had encroached upon forest land by breaking the forest land for the construction of a cemented road. An order of eviction was passed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners who had enjoyed the road for a certain duration, approached the High Court.
Reasoning
The Bench first dealt with the issue of ‘Locus Standi’ and observed that the Petitioners were not necessary parties to the lis before the Collector and had no locus standi for assailing the order passed by Collector Forest. “Merely because a private person has used the Government land as path would not make him a necessary party to the litigation instituted by the owner of the land against the offenders who had encroached & broken the forest land. Petitioners’ plea of road being used by them to approach their property is not sufficient for their impleadment in the eviction case. However, in case the petitioners desire a road to be constructed over the land, appropriate necessary steps as available in law are required to be taken by them. It is beyond the domain of Collector Forest to allow the petitioners to keep using the forest land for non-forestry purposes on projected plea of easementary rights or to order that since petitioners need an approach road, therefore, the encroachment over the forest land be not removed”, it said.
It was further noticed that in the Collector’s order, Ravi and Vikram Singh had encroached on the land in dispute in the said case by constructing a ‘Gompa’ and planting an apple orchard. The Bench further noted that the Respondents– Ravi and Vikram Singh did not assail the aforesaid order in appeal. The order became final. Thus, it was writ large that Khasra No. 1328 belonged to the Forest Department. On a perusal of the records and the impugned orders, the Bench found that no liberty was reserved to the petitioners by the Court for assailing the Collector Forest’s order in separate proceedings before the Appellate Authority or in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The Bench also made it clear that the land involved is not owned by the petitioners. Coming to the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the report placed on record by the respondents established that the road/path was not being used by the general public or for anyone else besides the petitioners. The path only led to the property of the petitioners, and there had been no pucca road over the land in dispute. The Gram Panchayat had spent 1.5 lacs sanctioned by the Collector for putting some stone crates over the land.
Thus, highlighting the distorted facts in the petition, the Bench dismissed the same.
Cause Title: Nishant Mahajan & Anr. v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:HHC:21268)
Appearance
Petitioners: Senior Advocate Sunil Mohan Goel, Advocates Vipul Sharda, Abhinav M. Goel
Respondent: Advocate General Anup Rattan, Deputy Advocate General Sikander Bhushan, Advocate Maan Singh, Senior Advocate Ankush Dass Sood, Advocate Vivek Negi